User talk:Jdtrue63

Jdtrue63, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Jdtrue63! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I notice you have been adding links to the names of communities. This edit is an example. Please take a moment to read WP:ELPOINTS, which states "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article". Would you be able to revert your edits? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This goes as well to User talk:2601:43:8201:DA70:ACB2:C7AC:E815:5324. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Thank you for your message on my talk page. Let me give you a bit more detail about why I reverted the external links you added, and I apologize if you already know most of this.

When you see a link that is either blue or red, it means an editor has placed [[two square brackets]] around the word or phrase, linking it to another Wikipedia article. Let's use Burnet County, Texas as an example. There are many communities within that county, but not all of them have their own Wikipedia article. The community of Briggs, Texas does have its own Wiki article, which means someone intentionally sat down and created an article for Briggs. At Briggs, the link is blue, and the link leads to an article about Briggs. An editor has also placed square brackets around Fairland, Texas, but that link is red, which means the link doesn't lead to a Wikipedia article. The red link is essentially a placeholder for a future Wikipedia article.

Redlinks are perfectly acceptable, and can indicate articles that should be written. If 500 articles link to "Cool Rapper John", someone should consider writing an article about this very popular rapper (if he meets notability criteria). Redlinks can also be problematic. For details, see Wikipedia:Red link and WP:WTAF.

In the case of Fairland, Texas (which you had added an external link to), I would ask you to click on it. Now, on the left, click on "what links here". You can see that four other articles link to Fairland. Also, Fairland is a real place. Here is its GNIS listing. It also has a cemetery, and a historic district. A look at the map also indicates there is probably a long railway history to Fairland.

What you did was, instead of creating a Wikipedia article for Fairland, you instead added an external link to a non-Wikipedia article about Fairland. Your edit was totally in good faith, but external links used in this way within the body of an article are discouraged (see WP:ELPOINTS). Generally, external links are added at the end of the article in the "external links" section (for example, a link to the official town website).

The place external links are often used the way you did is on articles about small towns, where there is a list of schools. It's rare that "Washington Elementary School" would be notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, so editors will add the name of the school to the article, then sneak in an external link to the school's website. Other editors will also sneak in links to their local businesses, which is highly discouraged.

The best thing to do with Fairland is write the article. There are lots of great resources for the article, see: [1], [2]. In fact, I will likely write the article today it looks so interesting!

I hope this explains my edit. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. It's perfectly ok to create redlinks for communities, however, when you create a redlink, you are basically confirming that the place actually exists. Your redlink says "this is an article waiting to be written". Very often, I have been unable to locate any source to confirm the existence of places listed on county articles, redlink or not. The first place to check is GNIS, and typically, only "populated places" are suitable for articles, though a "locale" (smaller and more transient) is sometimes used. If a place isn't listed in GNIS you will really need to do some research to confirm that it is a real place. I can only think of a few examples, such as Port Royal, Mississippi. Many redlinked communities are listed at Category:Lists of places in the United States by state. If you want to try creating an article about one of the redlinked communities I can assist. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ammannsville, Texas[edit]

The GNIS entry cited in the article doesn't say that Ammannsville is a historical place or a ghost town; what source are you referring to? TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheCatalyst31 I said in the edit summary that I don't know how to change the reference link. The GNIS page even gives a warning about linking to it's pages.

This is from the table when you look up Populated Places in Fayette County Texas:

Feature Name ID Class County State Latitude Longitude Ele(ft) Map BGN Date Entry Date Ammannsville 1329504 Populated Place Fayette TX 294721N 0965131W 404 Ammannsville - 30-NOV-1979 Ammansville (historical) 2034543 Populated Place Fayette TX Unknown Unknown - Unknown - 20-FEB-2004

The 1st entry is 1979. The 2nd entry is 2004.

If you click on the 2004 entry, you get this info:

ID: 2034543 Name: Ammansville (historical) Class: Populated Place (Definitions) Description: A ghost town. Citation: "Ghost Towns" http://www.texasescapes.com/.

If this isn't good enough, then change it back. Jdtrue63 (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the GNIS entry, and it cites this page on texasescapes.com as its source. According to that page, the community still has a population and some residences; it seems to be using "ghost town" to mean a community that has lost most of its population, rather than a community that has been completely depopulated. The GNIS entry seems to have interpreted this a bit sloppily (they also misspelled its name, which texasescapes.com didn't do), so I wouldn't necessarily trust that entry when the other entry and two other sources say it's still populated. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the wikipedia Ghost Town page A ghost town is an abandoned village, town, or city, usually one that contains substantial visible remains. A town often becomes a ghost town because the economic activity that supported it has failed, or due to natural or human-caused disasters such as floods, government actions, uncontrolled lawlessness, war, or nuclear disasters. The term can sometimes refer to cities, towns, and neighborhoods that are still populated, but significantly less so than in years past; for example those affected by high levels of unemployment and dereliction.Jdtrue63 (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly true in the colloquial sense, but it's not how ghost towns are categorized on Wikipedia; the term is typically reserved to describe places with no population, while populated places (no matter how small) are described as such, or as communities. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was just going by the definition I found on wikipedia. You've been doing this a lot longer than I have, so I'll defer to your judgement here. If you see anything else I'm doing wrong, let me know. I've already corrected a bunch of mistakes (external links) I made that another user pointed out.Jdtrue63 (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Town[edit]

For your information: the correct link to point to the article about ghost towns is Ghost town, with one capital. "Ghost Town" (with two capitals) is a link to an undesired disambiguation page. The Banner talk 22:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.Jdtrue63 (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always check what you are linking to!

I have corrected it already quite a few times in templates you have edited till I finally (rather slow) realised that you you just did not know that. Happy editing! The Banner talk 08:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taft Southwest[edit]

I can't do anything immediately — the PDF you linked is rather large, and my Internet here at home isn't the best, so I'll have to download it somewhere else. I'll get to it when I'm able to download it later. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just now remembered to get your PDF. You're quite clearly correct in saying that it's not a "former" CDP. Since it got detached from the city, I'm guessing that the city annexed the whole thing and then later un-annexed it, so the 2010 and 2000 census stats were unaffected because the incorporation time fell entirely between those years. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jdtrue63. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 11:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have repaired your cut and paste move[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Los Angeles Subdivision, Texas a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Los Angeles, Willacy County, Texas. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geography section[edit]

Thanks for all your hard work on US cities. I noticed in one edit here that you added geo-coordinates to the geography section. This was the style several years ago on Wikipedia, but it is no longer done when the geo-coordinates are already in the infobox, per WP:USCITIES#Geography. Just make sure the coordinates have been added to the infobox, and are turn on using "|coordinates_display=%". Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure why you changed the geo-coordinates at McDade, Texas. Were they different in another source? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I didn't mean to discourage you. There are thousands of articles with geo-coordinates in the geography section. It's really a minor edit. Keep up the good work. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sports boxes[edit]

Hello, I saw you've updated some sports articles by adding the new teams list. Here's a couple of things to keep in mind:

Instead of "Teams", use "Sports sponsored" as the section header;
Please use {| class="wikitable" style="float:right; clear:right; margin:0 0 1em 1em;" at the top of the box;
Link the team articles to the box (i.e. Baseball → [[Michigan State Spartans baseball|Baseball]]). Only those with articles should be linked;
Use the team colors (you've done it one article, but not others);
Do not capitalize the second word of a sport (i.e. Swimming and Diving → Swimming and diving, Cross Country → Cross country) per MOS:CAPS
Rearrange the sections in the article and decrease the size of the subsection headers so that they are grouped together (see this example)

Other than that, you did good. Thanks, Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following the examples from other pages. Some say "Teams" some say "Athletics" and some say "Varsity sports." I started with the team colors, but switched to an easier format. I can do the colors though. Not sure about doing the links because I don't know if there are pages for any of the teams and wasn't looking to do a lot of research. I just liked having the quick list of which sports teams they field. I'll try to remember to capitalization, I have a tendency to list thing like a title.Jdtrue63 (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been going through articles changing to Sports sponsored, but there is no set consensus on that. However, there is a consensus on the team colors. An easy way to know if there is a team article is to either look at the navbox or category on the main team's article. By not linking them, you're just making there be more work. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 05:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't know about the colors being a consensus. I copy and pasted the different formats from other pages and changed the relevant info. I have no problem doing it with the colors though. I just did Ohio State. I got the links from the page and incorporated them into the box, but it made me think. Why have to links in the box if they are already on the section for that sport? A while back I was updating communities in the various state county pages and I started adding coordinates to the geography sections in the communities. I did this because a lot of the other pages had them and I was trying to make everything consistent. Another editor told me not to add the coordinates there anymore because they were already in the infobox and therefore were redundant. Wouldn't that be the case with having the links in both the box and the section for the sport? I can do it either way, just like to be consistent.

Jdtrue63 (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. There is a very good chance that I would favor we remove the {{main article}} links underneath the section headers and just place the links in the box per WP:OVERLINK. If you want that changed, though, we would have to go through a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball to seek a change in consensus. The team colors and the links to the articles were all a part of the consensus due to the box that was chosen. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 18:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not interested in changing anything. I just like things to be consistent. I don't like to change anything someone else did. I just make corrections - spelling, alphabetizing, etc. I have no problem adding a box or a list, but I won't change the way someone else did it. Check out these 4 pages. They show the different formats I've seen for the list of teams. If there is a consensus one doing it one way, then maybe the contributors some be contacted so they can change it themselves. Xavier Musketeers, Wright State Raiders, Winthrop Eagles and VCU Rams.

Jdtrue63 (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's only been a couple of us actually changing them after the discussion. The reason why Xavier is formatted that way is because it is simply too small of an article. The others just haven't been updated. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 04:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Jdtrue63. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santan, Arizona[edit]

With this edit you removed Santan, Arizona from Template:Pinal County, Arizona. Because you left no edit summary I'm not sure why you did this as it appears to be a real place, per GNIS. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Jdtrue63. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starr County maps[edit]

Hi! I saw some of the citations for maps of communities in Starr County, Texas. Thanks for helping write those articles!

Anyway I think replacing the maptecnica cites with the US Census Bureau block maps for 2020 and 2010 (as the Census Bureau directly decides the shape of each CDP) would be a good idea. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]